Art is a microcosm of civilization. If, as Plato was to say, justice
consists in a certain ordering of parts according to their nature,
then art is an idealization of this arrangement, one anticipating its
coming into being. Pieces of the whole are found naturally there,
manifesting themselves as such a part. An aesthetic manifesting the
idea of justice is the human intellect striving to realize the pieces
of a whole subsumed under the concept of justice itself. Both the parts
and the whole are shown as manifesting what they truly are. Art, as
Plato would not say, is an understanding of justice as an idealization
of the real. These are two quite distinct things. The former is the
anticipation of the Good under the medium of an artistic expression.
The expression itself takes its beginning from the concept of justice
itself. The latter takes its starting point from the real, from natural
objects and states of affairs. By “idealization” one means the concept
of justice itself, a concept immortalized in the definition of Logos,
or the arrangement of elements forming a whole. Art seeks the elements
of justice within natural objects, and attempts to bring out its
defining features in ways currently not socially grasped. Artistic
creation is the ability to see potential for further ethical growth in
the natural and social order. It is the realization of essence, if only
in symbolic form. Art can find no separation from this. Art apart from
the Logos is degeneracy.

The lack of vision in modern art is one of the most painful and most
obvious signs of American and Western social collapse. It is such that
even the most untrained minds can see the lack of any hope in
society’s most subtle modes of self-expression. Art is a window to
society, and much can be learned through an examination of art, or the
collective social expression. Much is learned about social cohesion and
collective values through art. Classical Byzantium and its successor
state, Imperial Russia —perhaps two of the most healthy societies in
world history—expressed themselves in that antithesis of decadence,
iconography. Iconography is the aesthetic of counterrevolution. Even at
the start of the “Enlightened” revolution with Thomas Hobbes and the
Renaissance (of which he was the intellectual apogee), art had an
evocative nature, even a transformative one. However fleshy, sensual,
and hyper- realistic, Gothia showed mankind at its essence, in a
powerful relationship with the Creator of all things —humanity, that
is, as reaching fulfillment only in such a relationship. Mankind’s
essence as a rational being is actualized only in communion with its
creator. Religious art was the poetry of the soul, in that it could
transcend the mundane and show mankind’s final resting place. This was
the repose of the human soul, and poetry could capture it as
theological speculation never could. This is the aesthetic of the
liturgy, and even of scripture itself.

After the great El Greco attempted the fusion of the icon with
Western realism—certainly one of the greatest experiments in art
history—the residual transcendent understanding of art had a rather
short life. As liberalism and utilitarianism took over the realm of
ethics, art no longer had any metaphysical base from which to proceed.
Decadence and decay were soon to follow.

If art is the expression of the Logos, or the arrangement of
elements in a whole according to the fullness of their essence, then
modernity was the death of art. The ideology of modernity declared that
essences were non-existent. Following the ideas of the English
Schoolman, William of Occam, Enlightenment philosophy considered
objects as merely a bundle of properties. An essence was merely
something invented by the observer to make sense out of the properties
themselves, to bring unity to that which was brought to the senses.
Essences had no independent existence. There were no “objects” strictly
considered, but merely an understanding of universal causality. There
was no central purpose to man, the human intellect was reduced to a
bundle offeelings and impulses. No art worthy of the name can proceed
from such a psychology.

It was mankind, according to Francis Bacon and John Locke, that was
to impart meaning to objects, rather than science being a study of
objects in themselves. Rationality, vis-à-vis a just social order,
concerned the scientific establishment applying the understanding of
universal causality to the social realm—the birth of the social
sciences, reaching its apogee in Comte. The concept of a social science
was the elite arrangement of social entities (self-moving pieces of
matter idealized into “human beings”) in such a way that the response
to stimuli was to lead the entities in the preordained direction —it
was the social planners who were to define justice, and, if the human
intellect was a fiction, then all that was needed was a skillful
manipulation of sentiments and impulses. The greatest and most
unfortunate expression of this idea is within the pages of Hobbes’s
Leviathan (1651).

The effect on aesthetics was nothing short of revolutionary. With
the concept of an object fully expressing its essence now dissipated in
Enlightenment social science, objects were merely to reflect the moods
and drives of the viewer. Classical art was not something that
essentially extended from the intellect of the artist, or, more
accurately, the sentiments and “will to power” of the artist, but from
the object itself, the object expressing an intrinsic essence through
the medium of the intellect.

That essence being fully actualized in direct communion with God is
the very aesthetic of iconography, reflecting faithfully the philosophy
of a fully Christian social order as well as a Christian psychology.
The iconographer, usually a monastic, would fast for extended periods
of time before attempting to capture this concept. Fasting was to
release the spirit at the expense of the flesh, bringing the artist
into a fuller communion with the essence of all essences, pure being
itself, God. This is the aesthetics of the spirit, the aesthetics of
Christian civilization.

Enlightenment social science created an aesthetic that merely
reflected the drives of the artist, for there was no essence to be
actualized, no spirit to soar above the ever earthbound flesh. Art
became the “idealization” of the piece of matter-in-motion of the
Leviathan. Mankind was expressed in art, eventually, as the tortured
and imprisoned bundle of passions at the mercy of drives. Soon, this
idea was to reach its fullness in the Existentialist school; that
school of thought that still haunts Western man to this day. Art and
music began to express dread and fear. Mankind had no purpose and the
universe was absurd, but man was still forced to make moral judgments,
still forced to live in society and cherish his pathetic modicum of
earthly contentment.

There can be no question, with exceptions such as Goya, that the
Enlightenment ushered in the age of decadence in aesthetics. No longer
was the human form illumined from outside, but humanity was seen,
following the Weltgeist of scientism, to possess this for itself, as
itself. This myth was not to last long. Mankind, quite the contrary
from proving it was the bearer of the “divine spark,” showed that it
was capable of the basest evil. Such ideas came into painfully sharp
focus as World War I began.

Artistic creation was to become blurrier and blurrier as humanity
was severed from any transcendent purpose. By the end of the nineteenth
century, van Gogh, Sickert, Seurat, Prikker, van de Velde, and so many
others had severed humanity from its origin—and, explicitly so, had
Gauguin. Mankind was not renewed, as in classical iconography and
sculpture, but distorted, taken away from its transcendent origin and
place of repose; the human form became the plaything of arbitrary will.
Art became the idealization of the bureaucracy. Ovid’s Metamorphosis
had reasserted itself in the age of the social sciences. The onslaught
of Comte, Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche, as well as their famous
predecessors such as de Sade and LeMettrie, posited man not only as
lacking purpose and ethical basis, but subject to forces beyond human
control. Humanity became something to administer, to regulate, to place
in arbitrary units for its own good. This culminated in the communes
of Paris and in the collectivization of the Soviet period.

The will of the artist imitated the will of the bureaucrat and the
will of the industrialist. The structures of modern social science
replaced the human essence as the final resting place of artistic
creation. If

mankind was to be manipulated according to its passions, impulses,
and drives (the only realities in modern psychology), then it became an
inevitability that art reflected the powers of the new order. Art Deco
became the symbol of bureaucratic art, the art of the social
scientist, the aesthetic expression of John Dewey and John Maynard
Keynes.

World War I, of course, eliminated the human form altogether, giving
birth to a true Existentialism, one that is still the official creed
of the modern mass man. The destruction of the aristocracy, by those
who protected classical culture (in, however, a vulgar fashion), came
simultaneously with the destruction of the human form in aesthetics. It
was just a few years until Picasso distorted the human form by
following the ebb and flow of his own libido—the very apogee of
arbitrary, that is, non-rational, will in art. E. Michael Jones, in his
Degenerate Moderns, clearlyshows Picasso as merely being the
reflection of his own sexual lust and extremely short attention span.

The connection with Enlightenment—and Existentialist—metaphysics
should be clear. The manipulation of the properties of the human form,
truly the only relevant subject of artistic creation given the demise
of the human essence (or the human form in the highest sense), became
the only purpose of artistic creation, reflecting fully the
bureaucratization of social life in accord with the final victories of
the social sciences and their patron, the techno-bureaucratic and
industrialized state. As masses of humanity were herded to death in war
and into the factories, art reflected this new reality in the lifeless
and meaningless depictions of mankind. Dostoevsky’s Notes from
Underground (1864) became one of the greatest artistic creations of
social protest, both affirming and denying human freedom and the human
intellect, depicting a mankind that both loved and hated freedom, or
the idea that mankind possesses an intellect.

On the other side of the canvas, art was exemplified by the drives
and carnal desires of the artist. The Enlightenment had won and mankind
was now completely a material object, a purposeless, functionless blob
of desires and passions meant to be shaped into a harmonious whole by
the scientist and the bureaucrat. Art had followed the new idea of
mankind as well as the new idea of justice.

All of this falls into the perennial danger of the essayist, that
is, a stultifying simplicity, and one that I admit. A solid essayist,
however, is interested in essences, not in chronology. I notice one
interesting thing, however. As the human form was gradually destroyed
between 1890 and 1918—though the origins go back at least to the early
Enlightenment—the concept of sculpture remained highly realistic and
romantic, with horrible exceptions like Rosso. People like von
Hildebrand and Gerome did maintain a classical understanding of
sculpture. Dalou in sculpture and Liszt in music may well have found a
second but not entirely unrelated spur to the glorification of the
human form in the idea of the nation.

Dalou’s Triumph of the Republic (1899), however much it included
that prostitute “goddess” of reason at its head (the ever present
revolutionary symbol and a mockery of human rationality, and indeed its
death sentence), finds its clarity in the idea of the nation. Hegel’s
concept of the nation as the divine- historical manifested on earth, or
the concept in all its terrestrial fullness, may have well breathed
new life into the concept of humanity and its eternal purpose. The idea
of the nation, particularly in its more conservative aspects, created a
super- reason of the national patrimony. It created a new man, the
nation, or the collective man, from which art could spring. One must
understand, however, that even this was not to last. The wars of the
twentieth century put an end to that.

We need look no further than Picabia’s Girl Born Without a Mother
(1915) to find the final guttering out of Western aesthetics. Mankind
has completely become a machine, and the traditions of the past no
longer existent for European humanity. The lack of a “mother” was not
only the lack of an intelligible patrimony but also the
consummation—long anticipated by Hobbes—of fear into a fundamental idea
of human life. This fear was the fear of Existentialism: the existence
of moral ideas in a person supposed

to be merely material; the absurdist contradiction between mankind
as allegedly material with the idea that mankind can consider the
future. This was the fundamental contradiction of modernism and the
fullest explanation of the fear that gripped twentieth-century
man—reflected faithfully by the Existentialists. It finally took Toorop
and Brauner to view humans—including themselves—as corpses, or at
least as possessing a corpse-like countenance. Mankind without an
essence, mankind without a final and transcendent purpose, mankind as
being merely a bundle of properties (externally) and a bundle of
passions (internally) showed itself to the artist as form without a
life, function without a purpose. The corpse became the living symbol of
Enlightenment philosophy through its art.

The simple fact of meaning here is that modernity has made it
intolerable to be human; Existentialism itself quickly followed upon
the debris of the broken promises of modern science. The promises of
the Enlightenment—well-placed by Goya and others—went unfulfilled as
science failed to impart meaning to the human community. Science was
never to replace what classical philosophy had, without exception,
understood: an intrinsic meaning and purpose to the human function and
form, or an understanding of function through the form.

Socialist realism rediscovered the human form buttressed by
ideology, but art on orders from the state cannot be interpreted except
through the demands of the state system itself, and contains nothing
but the ever present demands for propaganda only. Indeed, art in the
twentieth century reflected the socialist school in that it was a
product of the New Order of mass capital and state manipulation. The
proof of this can be found in the dragooning of art into the service of
mass advertising, reflecting, in the most vulgar way imaginable, a
mankind that the scientific class considered as merely a tool for the
enrichment of mass capital and as cannon-fodder for the newly formed
and entrenched total warfare state.

Socialist realism understood the classical function of art much
better than the various schools at the time. For Marxism, art was the
reaching for human justice, a fullness of man’s “being”—a “being” that
was entirely self-created through the various new technologies. It
stood to reason, however, that once “paradise” had come to earth, art
lost its function; it was merely to report what it had seen, for there
was nothing to “idealize” since ideals were already manifested within
the socialist state. Thus, ordinary human forms doing ordinary human
things became the sole domain of artistic expression, in other words,
socialism had claimed to have transcended art in bringing it into
reality. The socialist state system, then, demanded the dissemination
of “realism” in art to show, if nothing else, that the paradise had
indeed arrived on earth. Socialist realism is a necessary outgrowth of
socialist theory, and served not the reality of socialist life, but
merely the demands for propaganda by the socialist elite.

What, then, is the aesthetic of counterrevolution? It is the
perennial aesthetic of the icon. What makes this the rock of
anesthetics—a true aesthetic of civility—is its vision of human
destiny, a final repose outside of earthly desires and fleshly
passions. It was the eros of Plato rather than the erotica of Picasso.
Humanity does not contain its “own light,” as the neo-gnostic
Enlightenment assured us; nor does science have the ability to recreate
the “divine spark” in its own image. The classical aesthetic of the
apostolic Christian world is that humanity, first, is fallen, and,
second, is capable, through communion with the Creator, of recapturing
the glory of his nature manifested to the fullest extent. This is the
aesthetic of iconography. The psychology of iconography is to be found
in the final victory of the spirit (or the upper reaches of the
intellect in Orthodox Christian theology) over the flesh. This victory
is not found in the radical suppression of the flesh, as the ancient
gnostics taught, but rather in that fundamentally Orthodox notion of the
transfiguration of the flesh.

What Plato understood, in spite of himself, was that the flesh was
an intrinsic part of the human person. His view of justice was not the
elimination of the flesh, but rather its being brought into subjection
to powers that are naturally superior to it. The spirit and intellect
were, by nature, superior to the flesh in that they could generalize
about natural contingency and understand the universal hidden therein.
Only

then could the flesh find its proper function in the world. The
passions, or the active principle of the flesh, were not to be
eliminated, but placed in the service of the intellect. This is the
psychology of civility, and was productive of an artistic vision that
idealized the final victory of the spirit.

One must, however, not forget the idea of the nation. The very
concept of the Christian collective, reinforced by its national idea,
is the true spur for considering the eventual human glorification in
the super-nation of heaven. Following Vladimir Soloviev, artistic
beauty is the divine light penetrating the material humanity. One can
extrapolate, first, the idea of the nation as the material condition
for the divine penetration, collectively speaking, of divine grace, and
second, the Christian society as its light. The life of the nation, in
other words, can be transformed by the church, and society can become
actually Christian. Christian society takes on the look of a large
church, and it is the light of Mount Tabor that makes a nation a
theological organization rather than merely a mundane one, as Saint
Augustine taught.

This is to say that, if the entire collective is transformed, there
is no object of nature that cannot be considered transfigured, and
thus, a thing of beauty. Beauty for those like Soloviev and the
classical tradition in general follows from the Holy Transfiguration of
Christ. Art represents the transfiguration of nature. It is not the
slavish imitation of nature, nor is it its nullification, but rather
its fulfillment. This is the purpose of art, this is the artistic
genius. Justice, then, is the Christianization of the collective
because only it can redeem man from his intrinsic fallenness,
manifested by the predominance of human passion and impulse. Justice
follows from the Transfiguration, for only when the flesh of man and
his community is transformed can mankind live as he should, according
to his essence.

But if nature is to be receptive of this transformation, then the
collectivity itself must be transformed. This is to say that the
society in general must be dedicated to manifesting the supremacy of
the spiritual and intellectual over the carnal. The Christian nation,
then, becomes a work of art, for it is the transfiguration of social
life. It is the idealization of the famous seal of the Byzantine
Empire, or the two-headed eagle, the joining of the mundane to the
spiritual in one transformative and transformed unity, the highest
aspiration of social theory.

Even the architecture of the church itself speaks of the idea of the
Transfiguration. The church itself, in its state closest to the
ground, or the earth, is square. This represents the mundane world with
its boundaries, pain, limitations. Above it and expressing a unity
with the square is the dome, and within it, the icon of the
Pantocrator, the creator and maintainer of all things. The divine
circle rests upon the human square. The circle transforms the
limitations of the mundane world, making pain and limitation necessary
ingredients to one’s spiritual transformation, itself a precursor to
the final glorification of the church in heaven. The altar itself is
always a square (tetrapod), while the body of Christ, offered upon it,
is in the form of bread baked in a circle. The circle has no beginning
or end, while the square is well defined by its intrinsic limitations.

The lack of the rational state of justice—the transformed human
collective—is the end of artistic creation worthy of the name. If the
collective is not dedicated to this state of affairs, or the
spiritualization of the collective, then nature cannot be seen as
transfigured, but merely as the object of human desire. This is the
very definition of decadence and is the ground for abstraction—or the
nullification of nature—in artistic creation. Nature is “conquered” by
the spirit and made to be seen anew, as expressing value in itself.
Outside of this, nature is viewed as Locke viewed it, merely a means to
mankind’s passions.

Nature can be three things in artistic representation: abstract,
real, or transfigured. Imitating nature as it is makes little sense—no
one needs an artist for this, but merely eyes. This is the art of
socialist realism that claims that idealization is unnecessary because
the ideal is now the real. Abstraction is the view of nature as the
object of technical manipulation, nature as nullified, subject to
outside powers.

Transformation is the glorification, through the light of the
Transfiguration, of nature to its original state, a state of
cooperation, abundance, and humanness.

This is the meaning of art, and it has a spiritual as well as social
component. The social life is to reflect the Church in its demand for
the supreme rule of the spiritual and the intellectual, as the Church
imparts the grace needed to make this a reality, not a part of the
dreams of the Platonists or the Stoa. The church is the true spur to
art in its fullness in that it is the mystical body of Christ itself,
thus redeeming us from our base passions. Humanity can finally be
represented in its wholeness, in its place of repose. In classical
times this ideal existed, but remained a distant object of speculation,
something Plato painfully took to his grave. There was no “bridge”
between the current passionate state of humanity and the ideal of the
rational life. This is, further, the aesthetic of counterrevolution,
the art of anti-decadence, the art against carnality.

Simply put, then, art is about transformation, collective as well as
natural. The Christian nation is an icon of heaven, as the monarch is
the icon of Christ; it is the transformation of collective life. Art
seeks to capture this transformation and present it to those who find
difficulty in comprehending a mass transformation as a theological
matter. Christian faith, in its highest and most complete expression,
is a collective phenomenon; when it becomes an individual phenomenon
solely, the end of Christian society is near if not present. The nation
has, in both East and West, been the repository of the Christian
collective. Its health—as Blessed Augustine was to say—is the health of
the Church. Both are necessary to the transformation of human life,
and thus, to the existence of true art. The light of Tabor enlightens
and transfigures the collective life as the national expression
encourages all to acts of penance and repentance. Christianity does not
exist with a series of monasteries or hermitages alone, but as a
vibrant collective phenomenon in the nation taking on the externals of a
Church in itself. The nation participates within the mystical body of
Christ on earth, and is not something foreign to it. This is the
beginning of transfiguration, and also the impetus to aesthetics. It is
the aesthetics of civility, the aesthetics of the new man.

Given the dumbed down and oversexed society we live in, where a man's worth is falsely based on how many women he beds, as opposed to his contribution to society, to answer your question, I guess guy #1 is what would be considered "alpha", guy # 2 would probably be alpha as well, but guys #3 and #4 would be considered "beta" males.

In any case Alan, we can argue until we go black and blue in the face regarding the dynamics of male-female sexual relationships, but the bottom line is this:

1) There is no such thing as being "good" with women, women PRESELECT the men they want, and this is mostly based on the man's looks,race and financial resources (yes, women have very strong racial preferences when it comes to men).

2) Women are shallow, superficial creatures that are attracted to shiny things, and if you don't pass the looks, race and money test with a woman, it's game over, lights out, and no amount of "game" or any other PUA dumbfuckery is going to change a woman's mind if she has already rejected you.

3) As with point #1, women are the CHOOSERS, when it comes to sex/or relationships, and as the choosers they are also JUDGE, JURY and EXECUTIONER when it comes to gauging your true SEXUAL MARKET VALUE.

I rest my case.

Master Yoda:

No Alan, Ceran absolutely nailed it with his summation of the word confidence and how it relates to attracting women, and I will expand on that with my own definition of what the word confidence actually means.

"Confidence is a SELF ASSURED FEELING (free of self doubt), that one will achieve a positive outcome, based on PREVIOUS, PERFORMANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT".

You can only be as confident with a woman as she allows you to be, and I will qualify my reasons why. For example, if you are interacting with a woman you have an interest in, and she is giving you evasive or hostile body language eg. she turns her back on you, she gives you the "silent treatment", dirty looks etc, then your confidence (or that self assured feeling), is going to plummet because you know you are being rejected. On the other hand, if a woman is giving you inviting body language, eg. she moves in on your personal space, she constantly touches you, smiles at you, actively participates in the conversation etc, then your confidence will rise, because you know that there is a good chance you are going to get lucky.

I am sorry, but your NBA star Michael Jordan analogy is a poor one, because you what you are doing here is, is that you are suggesting that picking up women is a skill, that once learned can be replicated again and again. Once again, picking up women is NOT a skill, women PRESELECT the men they want, based on the man's looks, race, money and status.

Learning how to play basketball actually is a skill, that once learned can be replicated again and again, and in the case of NBA legend Michael Jordan, he mastered his chosen sport with great skill.

You see a basketball is a neutral object, and it doesn't care whether you miss the hoop or not, and assuming you shoot the basketball in the right direction with the correct amount of force, the basketball will pretty much land in the hoop or if you have the height and know how to jump you can just slam dunk it. A woman on the other hand is a human being (Captain Obvious I know), who has a mind of her own, that can work with or against you, regardless how tight your "game" is. Some women will find you attractive, others will think you are an ugly creep, when you are dealing with a woman, you have NO control over the outcome.

Yes, I have given up on the dating scene (or should that be called the hook up culture), because I have had a fucking gut full of being rejected and humiliated by women, no thanks, I have my pride and dignity as a man, and there is no dignity in being made to look like a fool. If I want sex, I just go to hookers (prostitution is legal here in Australia), and I have to say the hookers I see, give me a great service for a very reasonable price.

Quotes from the original professor of "black pill" Uberman from getbig.com

Listen, we are animals and we re just designed to find mates to reproduce with, then we re supposed to maximize the odds of survival of offspring by helping it dominate the competition instead of being dominated by it. The healthiest, strongest, richest the partner is, the better odds of survival for the eventual offspring obtained with him/her. Thats what all animals do, they struggle daily and indefinitely to find, obtain and maintain/improve the highest odds of survival for themselves and their offsprings. Everything you do, think, is geared toward this unique goal, purpose.
Males /females relaltionships in all animal species are based on this very basic principle that motivates absolutely every single thought and action we automoatically and subconsciously produce at any given time.
We re automated war machines also known as "lifeforms" that consume resources until there are none anymore.

▀▀▀
the american dream = biggest unscrupulous assholes dominate weaker losers and eradicate them
▀▀▀It s a fact, majority of immigrants dont come to integrate but to import their way of life in the host's country. Also they re breeding way more than whiteys which means that logically, mathematically, they re going to outnumber them in the end, as simple as that, if you dont reproduce enough or more than other races, you get replaced by them. Immigrants are FORCED to assimilate when they are a very few in an ocean of natives, to survive they must become just like the hosts. When immigrants come in large groups and constantly stick together, they have no reason to assimilate no incentive to do so, and they import their way of life and then being more numerous impose it to the natives that are in smaller numbers before litteraly booting them out of their own place after a while. Quite simple to understand really. The same shit applies everywhere in the world, notably with muslims in europe.
Trump doesnt intend to become president, he knows he has no serious chance anyway, so he goes straight to the point speaking his mind. But wether it s in europe or north america, it s way past the right time to tell these truths. Money rules, rich cynical elites rule and they promote multiculturalism to lower salaries and crush the middle and lower social classes for their profits. Middle and lower white social classes are getting massacrated by their elites who flood them under waves and waves of cheap third worlders. The white race is isolated, self hating, depressed and in decline demographically, period. We re facing extinction, a slow, gradual but certain extinction.
The irony is that mexicans are mostly catholics that some of our white catholic ancestors converted to christianism. Their jesus and god are probably latino looking. They re crushing the atheist white dysfunctional family with their strong family ties and "faith", promise of eradicating the old corrupt white man - and woman-, they have that same revenge logic that muslims in europe have. Just like muslims in europe are convinced they re destined to replace the dying atheist lost and corrupt white man there. Believers, whatever they believe in, are crushing atheists, who mostly happen to be whites.
The other funny part is that most white people will end in retirement homes that are mostly ruled by ...mexican nurses.
Also when it comes to listening to one's opinion about immigration, i always tend to listen to the one who s actually really facing it daily with his guts, to get a realistic point of view, than some asshole who has no idea what is it really about and simply repeat cliche mantras about how great they are and how hard it is for them to make himself look better.

▀▀▀

I worked in nursing homes and psych wards while a student, for three weeks each... it's hell on earth. Psychological hell. Basically all staff members without exception are enjoying laughing openly at weakened and mostly isolated people daily and you can feel the obvious inhuman suffering of customers patients whose bodies and minds are slowly decomposing day after day and cant say or do shit about it. At this point most are sedated without consent with powerful anti psychotics to accelerate the global -physical and psychological- decline so another customer patient can replace them. As a patient, you re stripped of all your rights and are forced to comply with all coercitive behaviors of the so called "care givers". Most family members that sometimes came visiting them barely cared about what happened to them and you could sense it. They would just come to give themselves good conscience. Sometimes they would even laugh at the old patients with staff members...Everyone pretending all was fine and well. If the old patient says something out of place he/she knows he s going to get even more bullied once family leaves.
Most of these institutions are businesses and the dying human beings there are resources to "manage". They re financed by big pharmaceutical companies that provide them with the "drugs" which are subtly designed to accelerate their killing by deteriorating their brains and metabolism.
What i learnt there was that if for some reasons im not able to die in my bed at home surounded by close relatives, i d prefer to end on the streets dying of cold or shooting myself rather than ending there. A real life changing experience to spend some time there.
The irony is that these buildings are full of people who were convinced they d end bed ridden at home surrounded by caring family members...I remember an old man in a wheelchair quickly whispering in my hear while we were alone "this place isnt an hospital, it' s a prison". He pretty much summed my feelings in one sentence a few days before i left.

▀▀▀

in all times, soldiers have always been mercenaries , paid by the richest , strongest, to defend them from the poorer, weakest.
That's nature. An intelligent, philosophical soldier always end killing himself . Most soldiers are guys nobody know what to do with and are sent in the army by their own family to bring some money in. Needless to say if they die...well, at least family keeps getting the money.
Now im grown up and figured the ways of this world, i have 0 compassion for cops or military. They re all assholes.
▀▀▀
elites of all countries have always been impressed by eugenics and the global control/ genocide of poorer , weaker people they see as a danger as long as they cant work in their fields and factories. Most white elites of europe were pro nazism/eugenics before it turned against their interests. Churchill was quoted saying he somewhat respected and admired nazi ideals, of course he then modified his views to fit the reality as all politicians do.

▀▀▀

women created this world by feminizing their sons after neutering their fathers or booting them out. Women have taken over. And the anciently christian civilization is now an atheist and feminist, nihilistic, superficial society on the decline. Again muslims and chinese will roll over what is left of the white race very soon.
▀▀▀
it doesnt require to be christian/religious to see whats wrong with homosexuality. It s just common sense and has always been seen as something abnormal in all human and animal societies. Just like pedophilia and zoophilia or necrophilia.
Now it s becoming a norm, trend in the west and only there, simply because the atheist west is in complete decline. Homosexuality is at its core, a nihilistic , suicidal behavior. Feminists who took over males in the west of course encourage it; males submit by wanting to become women in order to survive. Obviously females have completely taken over males in atheist, white societies.
There is no doubt in my mind the white race is heading the way of the dodo. No way muslims or chinese ever fall into that nihilistic, suicidal stance. They ll gladly take over what we leave behind us.
▀▀▀
the rich man will always trouble the poor. Just like the weak monkey will always be harassed by the alpha monkeys. When you re a kid everything sounds fun until you re an adult and realize it s all about killing instead of being killed; all the "games" you "played" were just training for the real fight once grown up. Games serve only one purpose in all animal species: train to kill for when you ll be on your own.
Some are better prepared for it than others, and history is written by the winners.
Pleasure is felt when killing, dominating, pain is felt when losing, being dominated.
"Since we already know the ending, may as well make the time in between at least somewhat pleasant somehow. "
problem is to be happy, you ve got to step on someone else's head and actually face his/her pain to feel "luckier" and "happier" then him/her. One 's pleasure, hapiness, is always at the expense of someone's else pleasure, that s just the way it is. A winner needs losers to actually feel like a winner, otherwise he wouldnt feel like one. Nature isnt designed to be fair, all lifeforms exploit each others to "make a living" , survive.
Also most people who pretend to be happy because they ' re "helping" others are actually fooling themselves; they re in fact exploiting others weaknesses to make a living. Their ultimate goal cant be to completely cure their customers/patients problems; otherwise they wouldnt have a job anymore. They need a steady stream of "unlucky" people to "take care" of. Most social work is lucky people exploiting poorer, unlucky people. Irony is the rich need poor people to exploit and make a living while the poor constantly wish to become as strong as their masters to.. join and/or replace them.
There s a reason why so called "human resources" exist, it s because the weak is a resource for the strong. In all animals species, the luckiest, strongest, fastest individuals exploit, prey, on the weaker individuals and use them as slaves/resources.
And yeah, everything is vain for whoever understands the true nature of existence.
▀▀▀
the success of facebook only proves humans are vain egocentrical worthless hypocritical animals. Whatever their skin color btw.
▀▀▀

love the little buddha statue at the bottom of screen to make the whole presentation even "healthier" and legit. You know you re facing a charlatan everytime buddhism is brought up by a westerner.

▀▀▀

worked in IT for 6 years webdesigner/content manager and other bullshit titles -basically laughing all day with collegues surfing playing games and "working" like two or three hours a day-, got bored of office work, thought i wanted a" more meaningful" role and career...got into studies/health and social work... oh boy what a mistake. It was way less stressing to displace files , create some bullshit graphics , "code" websites and answer fucking emails all day. Sure it can get repetitive and boring, you want to smash your computer/mouse but are you really sure you want more stress? Given the choice now, i would choose boredom over stress. I learned nothing really good about life attempting to care about people needs, mostly that some people are luckier than others and...thats all. Most of the time you cant do jack shit to help people, you re just sitting there telling them stuff they either cant comprehend or cant really do. All they want are money/free handouts. And i dont even blame them. I came to despise all the collegues -mostly women- i had because they were making fun of the people they were supposed to help more tha anything. Comparing themselves to those who have less to make themselves feel better about their own lives. It s rampant in all the system, i leared that most doctors hate mankind and their patients with a passion. No really, health and social working are definitely not for me, way too cynical.
I regret so fucking much leaving IT now, im considering going back but it s tough. Seriously, stay sit in your fucking chair doing fuck all, there s no better place to spend the rest of your life. As you age the less stress you feel at work the better. Stress takes its toll way faster. Just my opinion. Stay healthy, practice sport, stay sit in a chair moving a mouse as a job and you ll live til you re 120. Isnt it what it s all about in the end, what truly matters, lasting longer than anyone else.

▀▀▀

When i was a kid i thought space was all about tie fighters, x wings firing lasers and planets full of funny looking "aliens".
Now i realize space is an uterly uninteresting, depressing empty cold dark place and that if an alien race exists/didnt destroy itself before leaving its planet it would probably destroy us if they ever found us.
It s called growing up and realizing how shitty life is at its core. Most old people who survived long enough to see most of their peers die of cancer or suicide know the truth. They enjoy life as much as they can when they can for the luckiest of them, not giving a fuck about what will follow, simply because they know that what will follow is ... more and more competition, more and more wars until nothing is left at all. After a lifetime spent looking around them, they know we re just animals that will destroy themselves at some point if we re not destroyed by some random cataclysmic event first.
What is left then? focusing on everydays simple pleasures, and telling the youthto fuck off. They know their kids will abandon them as soon as money and inheritance will become the only reason to talk to them. Thats what happening in most of atheist families. White man dont believe in anything anymore, no values, no faith, no morals, it s all about fucking or getting fucked until we all get fucked one day anyway once and for all.
Third worlders who still "believe" in various religions, in strong family ties will flood and replace us all, then will progressively abandon their faith too and become just like us, whiteys. Their time is coming as we re slowly disapearing, but they too, will face that state of ultimate mental decay the white man is the first to have reached thanks to "reasoning, logic and "science".
Most people are doping themselves with various drugs daily to have an edge over the competition for jobs, mates etc. Everything is allowed and money and domination are everything. Always have been but it s just now more apparent than ever, after we got rid of the fake sugarcoating of "religion". There is nothing left but our sheer natural cruel core bestiality for all to see.
We re just fucking animals killing each others randomly and indefinitely until we either destroy ourselves for the last resources or get destroyed by something coming from somewhere else. Life is war, at all levels, constantly. Some are designed to survive, others to disapear. The strongest last longer, but they too at some point are destroyed.

On Internet-Abstinence by Archimandrite Symeon (Tomachinsky) | 29 May 2015

Much-respected Vladykas; dear Fathers, brothers, and sisters; ladies and gentlemen!
It is my special pleasure today to speak to you on May 9, on the celebration of Victory Day. On the one hand, we indeed celebrate the ontological victory of Christ over death and the devil; and, on the other, we celebrate the earthly and historical victory over fascism and evil. This gives us hope that today as well we will find a solution to the problems that we are discussing here.

There have already been several interesting speeches on Internet-abstinence: in particular, Fr. Maximos Constas delivered an excellent speech today, and Elena Zhosul also spoke on this topic. She introduced a very nice term: digital detox. Archpriest Vasilios Thermos also spoke about the necessity of having a sober attitude towards the Internet, and many who have spoken here have mentioned this topic.

Many Christian virtues, as we know, are connected with abstinence. This can mean abstinence from food, alcohol, conjugal relations, evil thoughts, impure looks, rude words, and sinful deeds. Some types of abstinence are temporary, as for example during Great Lent, and some are prescribed only for certain groups of people, such as monks, in certain situations. Others are permanent and unconditional. In fact, most of the commandments given by God to the people of the Old Testament are of a restrictive character and contain an element of abstinence. Generally speaking, as we know, abstinence as a virtue began in Paradise, when the Lord commanded Adam not merely to cultivate the Garden of Eden, but also to refrain from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The appearance of the Internet has opened a new front in mankind’s spiritual warfare. The Internet has introduced new and effective means of tempting people. These are probably not new sins, but they do involve new means of tempting and manipulating people, as well as new means of wasting life. At first, it had seemed that computers and the World Wide Web had introduced unparalleled opportunities for people’s creative development.

Steve Jobs once related a textbook case about reading an article in a learned journal about how much energy various animals put into covering distances and into any positive work. And Jobs came to a conclusion that condors (a kind of soaring eagle) are the most successful animals in this regard: they expend the least number of calories to move at the maximum speed. Man is somewhere near the bottom of the list. Jobs suggested that computers could become a kind of bicycle for the human brain, because a bicycle, which is a human invention, immediately gives one the advantage to use one’s capabilities more instinctively than condors. That is, one expends fewer calories to cover longer distances. Jobs proposed that computers should become this sort of bicycle for the human brain. But how did it turn out? It turned out that it was not man who ruled the computer in order to increase his capabilities, but that it was the computer that ruled man, dictating his will and offering endless diversions.

Multitasking has become one of the most intractable problems for modern man. In his article titled “How Today’s Computers Weaken Our Brain” in The New Yorker, Tim Wu examined different aspects of this problem. The author arrived at the following conclusion, and I quote: “Today’s machines don’t just allow distraction; they promote it. The Web calls us constantly, like a carnival barker, and the machines, instead of keeping us on task, make it easy to get drawn in — and even add their own distractions to the mix. In short: we have built a generation of ‘distraction machines’ that make great feats of concentrated effort harder instead of easier.”

A great feat of concentrated effort – this is what is required of us, and this is what we lose because of computers. In his article, the author gives three examples of successful creative works. The first was Franz Kafka, who wrote his work “The Judgment” in eight hours, in one sitting, without being distracted by anything. The second was Jack Kerouac, who wrote his famous novel On the Road in three weeks. The third was Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, who created a new video game, Breakout, in four days. I am deliberately avoiding offering any evaluation of the works created, because I would like to draw your attention to the conditions that are essential for creative work – although, of course, the works of Kafka and Kerouac are considered classic literature.

Kafka could have gotten distracted from his work by checking his e-mail, and could have lost the inspiration that was essential for finishing his story. Kerouac could have checked his Twitter or chatted on his Facebook, WhatsApp, or somewhere else, and his On the Road would never have been finished, and we would never have been able to read this novel. Psychologists state that a person can fully concentrate on one thing at a time, and on several things in the background, but that will already be unproductive. Yes, we can all simultaneously talk on Skype and surf the Internet, and even write simple letters via e-mail. However, we also know that we cannot do serious work in a similar way. We live in an age when tremendous forces are fighting for our attention and time, as we have heard in other speakers’ talks.

The Internet has become one of the most important battlegrounds. It is no coincidence that neologisms have appeared in Russian, such as khronotsid, which means killing time, and osetenet’, which means getting addicted to the Internet, and which also sounds like the word osatanet’, which means getting attached to the devil. We are called to make friends with time, just like Alice in Wonderland. If previously we could just run faster in order to stay in one place, today we have to run twice as fast, as you can understand. Therefore, many people are now installing the Freedom program onto their computers, which disables any signals given by e-mail, social networks, or Internet advertisements in order to concentrate on their activities.

Even if we were merely talking about wasting time due to diversions on the Internet, it would be a great cause for alarm. But today we are talking about true Internet-addiction. The previous talk clearly demonstrated this fact. This Internet-addiction can be compared to drug addiction. Many people literally experience severe withdrawal symptoms if they are deprived of the Internet for even a short period of time. Dr. Dimitrios Karayiannis was among those spoke about this on the first day of our conference. The Internet is turning into a kind of Gogol’s “Viy,” which, when seen by anyone, kills one with its evil powers. The Internet is like a crystal ball, a Palantir, in J.R.R. Tolkien’s writings. One hopes to look into it to see a mystery, but gradually it turns one into a slave of the Dark Lord. Sometimes our mouse and our face, looking at a computer screen, become the mark on one’s right hand and forehead of which St. John the Theologian speaks in his Revelation. Sometimes we are one click away from a grievous sin that would enslave us to the devil.

You all know the old monastic piece of wisdom: “Go, sit in your cell; and your cell will teach you all things.” Modern life has created another aphorism from a collection of dark humor: “Get Internet access in your cell, and your cell will teach you all things.” This does not merely concern monks. It is as if the three temptations of which the Apostle John the Theologian speaks – the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life – have taken shape on the Internet.

Of course, please do not misunderstand me: I am not against the Internet; one has to use it for the purposes of pastoral and missionary work. We have witnessed a wonderful example of such ministry during our conference. Abstinence does not mean giving up the Internet. Abstinence means a rational, creative, and constructive attitude towards the Internet. We are called to learn Internet-abstinence. One should teach young children to learn its rules, to use it carefully, like a hot iron or an electrical current in a wall socket. These rules should be taught in schools and studied in-depth at universities. They should be put on one’s desktop as accident prevention.

If we would like to preserve our freedom and if we wish for computers to serve people, and not the other way around, and if we value the feat of creative and constructive work and not killing time, Internet-abstinence should become a new Christian commandment for us.

“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:20).

Valaam abbot gives up Internet, suggests restricting use of smartphones in monasteries | 23 July 2015

“All these smartphones, large screens are a huge temptation, especially to young monks. I have often heard them say at confessionals that they have again fallen into the sin of using the Internet […] One novice even left Valaam because he had been drawn by the Internet and the common world had drawn him back. I even believe it’s one of the biggest challenges to monks now,” the bishop said in an interview published in the Wednesday edition of the paper Argumenty i Fakty.

The bishop said monks leave the secular world and smartphones bring them back to it, adding that the problem now exists everywhere, even on Athos.

“They write blogs there, talk on forums, send ‘Many years’, addresses and anathemas. But all these things absolutely contradict monkhood. Although I use the Internet myself. It’s really convenient: you can learn the weather and the weather forecast for tomorrow, whether you should use a boat to sail on the Ladoga or not, and the news on events taking place in the patriarchy and the world. It’s convenient to manage, read and send letters,” the bishop said.

Nevertheless, he said he has made a decision to give up the Internet.

“Even the phones that monks have on Athos are not theirs, they are the monastery’s. They get them like they get socks in the warehouse, a cup and a spoon, the simplest and the cheapest furniture. Everything is very functional. If a monk gets a specific obedience, he gets a phone and the phone is taken away when it’s over. The same should be done in our monasteries,” he said.

Elder Ephraim of Vatopedi: The Internet and Spiritual Experience | 22 May 2015

The rabid development of information technology over the past two decades has truly brought about unexpected results, of which we could not even dream in the seventies and even eighties. The Internet, e-mail, web-based resources, social networks: they are part of our everyday life, work, science, education, art, and entertainment. The Internet has allowed us to reduce or even abolish distance. Thus, news can be transmitted through the Internet from one end of the earth to another in a couple of seconds – we have all had this experience. Conversations, sometimes even involving eye contact, now take place smoothly, regardless of distance. The only condition is that the user have Internet access. Indeed, the use of the Internet is so simple that any child or elderly person can easily use it.

In this same manner, the Word of God can be transmitted anywhere in the world. In this way, that which is happening here in Athens before an audience of 100 people can be recorded and sent to thousands or even millions of users, or even transmitted online, as is happening now with our conference.

But we should realize that the Word of God is not simple human speech, but bears Divine Energy, which can spiritually revive man and truly comfort him – and this can happen through the Internet. We know of many cases when various people – atheists, idolaters from India, Japan, and Nepal – have found Orthodoxy through the Internet and been reborn, because they found the truth that they were looking for in this life; they found Christ.

Not long ago the Hollywood actor Jonathan Jackson visited our monastery. I asked him how he became Orthodox. He told me that the Internet had very much helped him. On the other hand, thanks to the Internet, Christians who had departed from God have returned to Him, found themselves, and found their place in this world. There are people who had been on the verge of absolute frustration and, having listened to some talks on the Internet, found the necessary spiritual strength and hope, and are now developing spiritually.

Of course, the Orthodox Word of God is less present on the Internet compared to other words. When I speak of other words, I mean science, economics, politics, and even such phenomena as fashion, show business, or even certain corrupting resources that, unfortunately, are often visited.
It seems to me that today the Word of God must have a strong and powerful presence online. The majority of people today are disoriented, constantly falling at an impasse. In this era, only the Word of God can comfort man, inform him, and assure him of the possibility of eternal life. The Word of God transmitted through the Internet can have a healing function for man.

The creation of digital libraries with relevant content can and should be encouraged and multiplied. The heritage and wisdom of the Holy Fathers, with their remarkable texts, should be used as much as possible in the most modern and optimal way. The digitization and categorization of the Holy Fathers enables Internet users to find texts and information on topics of interest to them. Moreover, the digitization and promotion through webpages of the Word of God, especially the teachings of the Holy Fathers as well as of the Elders of the twentieth century, will bring spiritual benefit to our contemporaries.

Elder Ephraim of Katounakia said: “Oh, what it pity that it wasn’t possible to record the sayings of the Elder Joseph.” We understand that it is truly important when things are uttered by people who have experienced and gained personal experience in the unseen spiritual warfare. St. Paisios said: “Write down everything that is spiritual that you hear, as well as the experience that you have heard from others, because there will come a time when this experience will be exhausted, and you will have a spiritual deficiency.” Indeed, over the past few years there has been great growth in the publication of books of theological content, especially in Greece, but also in other Orthodox countries.

But, unfortunately, there are Orthodox who, due to language barriers, do not have access to these valuable texts. Moreover, the ordinary book, printed on paper, is now in a serious crisis. At the same time, sales of electronic books are growing. Therefore, we can say that we can make use of this trend. We can say that all this is good and God-pleasing, when everything goes correctly.

The Internet is a modern tool that promotes globalization. Those who would like to spread their ideas for global history, global economics, a global state, and a global leader know how to make use of the Internet – and, indeed, they use it at a high level. Why should not we, the Orthodox, use this instrument for promoting the global role of Orthodoxy? Why should we not use it for uniting the Orthodox and its mission in the known world?

The proper use of the Internet depends upon the user. Of course, the Internet cannot replace living contact. Of course, no one can attain a given level of spirituality through the Internet alone. Orthodoxy is person-centered. Priority also goes to the essential value of the person, to the individual person. The Internet is a tool, an instrument, that helps and benefits us – but in order for the faithful to lead an authentic spiritual life, it is required that he have personal contact with his spiritual father.
In the same way, it is essential to have communication with other brethren, in order to experience love and to participate in all the Mysteries of the Church. Of course, there are also cases in which excessive use of the Internet, even for good and spiritual purposes, can create dependence, resulting in asocial isolation and a detrimental effect on one’s personhood. Thus, the Internet can have negative results: instead of leading the user closer to Christ is can, on the contrary, lead him away from God. Therefore we bear the great responsibility of promoting and sharing the Word of God using the most creative, useful, and modern methods – but we should also inform our flock about how to use the Internet profitably, emphasizing all the negative effects that can be caused by the misuse of this technology.

This is one of the goals of our conference, which for the first time is being carried out on an international level for the Orthodox. It is a great blessing that the first such conference is taking place in our country. I would like to thank the organizers: the online journal “Pemptousia,” as well as online resources and “Bogoslov” from Russia. Our monastery always supports with much love and interest the activity of the “St. Maximus the Greek” Institute. We hope that this conference will be able to confront the challenges of the modern world, and that all participants will use these new technologies and the Internet for their spiritual benefit.

Christ is Risen! I thank you.

Elena Zhosul: The Orthodox Church must respond to the challenges of “information overload”

In her speech at the First International Conference on Electronic Media and Orthodox Pastoral Care, Elena Zhosul described the current state of the media scene as an “information overload,” since a large amount of data hinders a person’s ability to concentrate. In contrast to many hours spent researching in archives, online searches can be reduced to a few minutes, however, this this type of “search outsourcing” weakens memory and reduces one’s ability to critically analyze surrounding reality.

The speaker quoted the writer Umberto Eco: “Over time, the Internet can become a conspiracy and destructive to human civilization.” Orthodox Churches need to provide an adequate response to this challenge, she said. “In our church, this sort of work has begun in the framework of an Inter-Council Presence,” said Elena Zhosul.

She stressed that even Ecclesiastes warned against what scholars then called an information explosion: “My son, beware of anything beyond these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh. ” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). The same was later said Heraclitus of Ephesus, Seneca, and French Encyclopedists.

The increasing amount of information in the network can easily be seen in the number of monthly users on Facebook. In 2008 there were only 100 million, but now there area already about 2 billion.
“If we do not want virtual reality to become a space without God, we should seriously consider how the Church can be present in this reality more effectively in terms of transmitting our message to the world — especially the youth,” said Elena Zhosul, recalling the words of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.

“We need to take on part of the information overload,” she contends. She identified three stages of this path: awareness and recognition of the problem, study devoted to the Church’s patristic heritage, and digital detox (deliberate restriction of Internet use), which Christians are increasingly doing to guard their discipline.

Elena Zhosul quoted the Gospel passage: “Watch therefore — for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning — lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.” (Mark. 13:35-36).

The New Left is absolutely responsible for setting the stage for contemporary identitarian progressives. As such the whole "where did this come from?" act is completely disingenuous. The New Left replaced native workers with students and oppressed groups as the core of revolutionary change. Similarly, non-objective theories of oppression like Freudian Marxism were already popular. I should also point out that while the Left has always had a professional class which leads, the gap between the oppressed peoples and the leadership has grown considerably so they make up for this uncomfortable truth by adopting their own victimology. When the veteran Boomer leftist speaks of "the reasonable hierarchy of moral priorities" he means objective measures of disenfranchisement, such as income levels and educational opportunities. The contemporary progressive has no time for such things and is perfectly content to see oppression as simply, "I went outside and somebody looked at me funny" or, "I do things that make me feel bad about myself but I don't want to take responsibility." When we consider that the contemporary progressive is likely a jobless college student living off their parents finances it's easy to see why this mode has won out. Despite the irrationality of the political language, there is an objective self-interest at play. This is because in the Anglo-American context, the Left has always been better at politics than the Right. The language may change but the promotion of the professional leadership class is always the objective. From labor unions (the Old Left) to libertine upper middle class students (the New Left) to middle class young people with personality disorders and a medicine cabinet full of SSRIs since middle school (contemporary progressives).

The more I see this sort of thing the more convinced I become of my private theory that beta male fixation on epic romantic relationships with women is actually an anima projection of an unmet need for male friendship that is too emotionally intense for the manchildish masculinity of American men to bear and too alien to what women want in a man for them to really satisfy. All of the characteristics that are associated with romantic love - mutual understanding, intimacy, loyalty, and so on - are clearly more apt to flourish among people who are like minded, and there are few sets of people less like minded than a man and a woman. Yes, there is a sense in which sex can be said to naturally lead to love - the sort of breeding-love you see between people who are committed to the path of raising children together. But that is perhaps rare among humans, who seem to be far more reticent about accepting the full weight of responsibility for family and children than one might think; and it is in any case something clearly not widely found in America, where the association of sex with babies is considered morally offensive by a wide range of lunatics who prefer to talk about infants as if they were a sexual disease one needs "protection" from. One would think the more natural option for a lifelong lover (note: lover, not sexual partner) would be someone who is more capable of understanding who you are and where you are coming from, rather than someone else whose alien patterns of thought and behavior are literally proverbial for their oddity.

Why don't American men get this? Among other reasons, it is because we have lost the spine needed to enforce morality and have allowed the fringes of our society to define what qualifies as love, falsely and to their own twisted benefit. This is why behavior that would not lead to a raised eyebrow in traditional societies is classified as "gay" in the US (Ango wrote about this once after seeing men holding hands in Korea). Back when we were a traditional society as well, that was common here too. Now we can no longer set boundaries and allow the normal behavior of mankind to be norm of our law, and so we end up here: absurd expectations straining marriages to the breaking point, which might have otherwise worked if they had been entered into with more humble intentions.

Bronze Age Pervert:

The Greeks, as stated, wouldn't approve of modern homos, and modern homos would be ridiculed and would lose voting rights for engaging in slavish conduct. It's also not clear how much sex pederastic relationships involved, and it probably varied from state to state. The Thebans were famous sodomites (and rustics). The aristocratic Athenian relationship was ideally non-sexual. Also Foucault and these others are twisted and wrong about older men exploiting younger & women, in fact as Paglia emphasizes, it was the younger partner who was, if anything the "dominant" one, and he was worshiped and literally put on a pedestal. Whether this involved sex or no, I don't know, but Nietzsche says it was this love of youth that allowed for genuine education to take place, since it was based on love.

Otherwise I agree with what Sixtus says, even in societies without a reputation for homo, friendships between men were intense and could be considered "gay" today. I believe another reason such friendships are discouraged is because they are politically very dangerous. It's also the reason for the attack on fraternities (which only exist in colleges; in real life I believe men's clubs have been legally banned, and yet it is only from such clubs that any effective political movement can emerge). I don't think this was consciously thought out by ZOG, but it works to its great advantage. Normally in an age like ours there would be many conspiracies by such clubs and by men in mid-level military to overthrow the regime. Harmodius & Aristogeiton are the ancient aristocratic ideal, two friends who stood up to tyranny.

American men are feminized in a literal sense, their emotional life is exclusively connected with women and they are taught to have contempt for friendship with men. I don't think this was planned though, I don't think ZOG can think ahead so far.

Sluthate.com found out who the internet meme "Greensboro Jock" was and how he became a multimillionare business man married with kids:

Peppers wrote:

Just lol that this former Jock that injected roids at 18 ended up making it to Alpha status. You couldn't of scripted it would end up like this. This is surreal and a true sluthate fairytale story. The irony. The coping of nerds that they believe "Dumb Jocks end up working for them at 40" totally blown out of the water. Popular, athletic and liked at 18 = the tracks for success in life being made. Genetic trash framecel pubertycel manlet with a weak face, unpopular, unathletic at 18 = the tracks for life success broken and require years of repair and will always remain unstable due to bad memories.

PJGoodwater wrote:

lol seriously. Success in the business corporate world is all about CONNECTIONS, NETWORKING, getting people to like you and making them think you are the right person for the job/promotion regardless of actual skill set. As an incel your only real hope of getting rich like Gould is to pull a Cuckerburg and program some shit that everyone will use.

Otherwise as an incel you will be doing all the actual work for executive Chads while they go out to eat with clients at fancy restaurants and making deals face to face with important people. If you aren't charismatic and can get people to side with you, you will never succeed in corporate America, regardless of how hard you work

Heartiste has some good tendencies but someone eventually will have to address the cuckold/wimp-centered view of history you see in so many HBD (human biodiversity) writers like Peter Frost, Steve Sailer, and probably Greg Cochran. These are IT guys who have strong resentments of physicality and a weird relationship toward manliness (they all lack it, but where Frost seems to resent it, Sailer has some strangely erotic appreciation...still foreign though). They want to make the case that the white race or Western civilization is great because white men have evolved to be less masculine, more docile/tame, altruistic, cooperative, and possessing the sort of intelligence to do IT work or sit through an IQ test or do book-keeping.

Thus the great founders of Western civilization are not the geniuses, explorers, conquistadors, generals, etc., but the quiet, dependable, beta nerd, who is supposed to have existed in 17th C as well in the form of a craftsman or scientist or something like this (which is inaccurate; a shopkeeper would be the correct analogy, but they won't admit that). You'd call it self-serving, but in fact it's all they know...they are this way themselves, they know very little history or about the variety in regimes and cultures within Europe, and the most vivid dangers or alternatives they see are blacks on one hand and Chinese on the other. This explains nearly all their sexual neuroses and concerns and their model for evolution and for European history.

That it's a retarded view that can be disproven with consideration of a few historical facts--for example that blacks are the most reliably docile group, have been slaves to every civilization that has come in touch with them, have been recognized as good and submissive slaves, and have been recognized to prosper under slavery; or that Nordics have never been seen either as altruistic or docile by other peoples--won't change anything because unfortunately "HBD" the way it's conceived of right now is meant to fulfill some psychological or political function. And the carriers of HBD are the carriers of "game," which is largely an IT community as far as I can tell, and motivated by the same impulses. That some of these impulses may be understandable and excusable is one thing, but you can't let the male equivalent of Starr decide that the essence of Western history is "kindness to puppies."

popfop:

HBD is identity politics for white collar meritocrats and normcore bloggers. The ideal society for them would be the postwar United States especially in regards to its technocratic elements (i.e. companies like MITRE which work with the US military as well as the private sector). These are people from the aspirational middle classes who primarily work in STEM, business or financial services and as such consider themselves productive members of the system. They see the current decline of the West as something that can be reversed with a few policy changes. Their ideas rarely involve a critique of a managed mass democracy, which is considered fine as long as it serves the correct demographics. As their view of human societies are reductive to only materialist and scientific interpretations, they are incapable of understanding necessary irrationalities such as myth-making and the expending of passionate energies for reasons other than increasing future safety and comfort.

Thoughts:

HBD-ers are autistic conformists -- what is bolded being the most descriptive single word to describe a bag of separate stupidities. They would be out of place in the West and rather belong to *China*, which they secretly envy and always have some positive word for.

Great geniuses, explorers, generals and the like, have had the same values as very great scientists and technical thinkers - that is creativity. Such creativity might be expressed by different subject matters, ranging from political action to some abstruse dimension of thought. Creativity must be combined with depth, which is why "businessmen" and most engineers, despite being 'creative' in some way perhaps, are shallow and cannot be called great men. (Politics adds depth to pure action, as architectural visual content adds depth to music, and allusion depth to literature.)

These are truisms but they are completely lost on the HBD "blogosphere" - and the Chinaman, Buddhist, astrologer, etc., are as far as ever from learning it.

I have spoken before of the static society that is "Singapore". Any examination of Singapore reveals the kind of utopia that HBD beta nerds furiously masturbate to in their sleep.

At the risk of being harsh, I have to point out that this is exactly why Peter Frost and to some extent Sailer have been called the “cuckold HBD” crowd. This article contains many half-truths and some outright lies. For example, if you actually check the relevant figure, which is children born to white mothers where the father is not white, the figure for children with “hispanic” fathers and white mothers is close to 6% and the figure with black fathers is about half that much. So if Frost wanted to focus on the problem of racial sexual competition he would mention this figure, which in fact he distorts, leaving the reader to think that the majority of the 11-20% is because of interracial mating with blacks. In fact the bulk of that 11% is with “hispanics,” which you have to put in quotation marks because my bet is that the vast majority of those are South American Spaniards and not 4’7 mestizo cholos. The figure in fact for children born to white mothers with black fathers is around 3%. I don’t know about the “undeclared” figure of around 9% but there’s no reason to assume most of those are black either.

This is par for the course, as Frost has denied in the past, for example, that there is an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency among Western populations worldwide, when there is a lot of evidence for such deficiency. But there is a pattern to his denials or distortions, which is that all of thse fuel different aspects of his cuckold fantasy; so because of this article and because of his general take on things I’d put my money on it, that he watches interracial porn and has fantasies about white male feminization, which he discusses above as if it is a real problem or “strategy,” rather than a statistical blip that is mostly the practice of a certain kind of homosexual.

One thing he doesn’t discuss at all is the problem of female obesity in the West (and the likely fact that many if not most white females who breed with or marry blacks are obese and/or aged). To any reader of heartiste or similar blogs, and any observer of day to day life in the USA, this problem of white female obesity and in general white female undesirability (disagreeableness, bitchiness, sloppiness in dress, etc.) would seem to be a much bigger problem for young single white men, but of course Frost doesn’t mention this. Why? Because white female desirability is central to his cuckold fetish, without which it would whither. Note that he compares American women to East European women, which is absurd.

Finally you should know that I don’t say these things about Frost (or Sailer) just because of this article, but because of their general, and ahistorical, take on the history of Western civilization (a more appropriate name than “white,” which was never a self-identifier except in the colonies). You can see this nonsense in the last paragraphs where he complains about “Don Juans” (as if Italian culture is not even more central to Western history and culture than NW Euro), and where he has this image of “shy” beta workalike NW Euros who “built civilization.” This is garbage, as civilization was built by alphas, not betas. This is a longer discussion, but Frost and Sailer are indeed beta IT-type guys or nerdoids who see themselves and their type as foundational to Western culture, when in fact they are another symptom of its decline. Conservatives in the 19th century were already complaining about how culture was decaying because the democratic age gave dominion to the meek shopkeeper and the calculating bourgeois. We’ve forgotten this and foolishly identify “white civilization” precisely with the meek shopkeeper. But it was not always this way, and the Viking and Finn were not seen as anything like “beta” even quite recently.

The point is this, that if Western society is indeed “beta” then it deserves to fail, and it WILL fail. The right to rule doesn’t and shouldn’t belong to accountants, shopkeepers, programmers, and timid calculators…and never did.

Those normies who preach "willpower" had early positive experiences both at home and among peers that heavily outweighed the negative experiences. Therefore, it's easier for them to motivate themselves due to self belief and high self-esteem that has been reinforced into them early on and has carried through into adulthood. Any "bump" in the road will be met with a shrug as they'll simply remind themselves of all the positive experiences and "get on with it". Most of us here on the other hand have dealt with overprotective parents, lack of male role models, abuse, rejection from peers, humiliation, and failure in most of our goals (resulting from the aforementioned). Naturally, we resort to distract ourselves using the internet and video games where no one will judge or berate us. This leads to further social isolation and seeing how most things that normies and society consider "meaningful" involve some sort of interaction with normies at one point or another, we inevitably fail. I feel for the wizbros who are forced into wage slavery or college, because the slightest bump/misfortune is met with crushing depression because we know it only gets worse, and it sure as fuck does.

There is no shock any longer. We've had to invent novel sins (such as "racism" and "homophobia") into order to preserve our capacity for outrage, and therefore the thrill of violation. For this reason there are Jewish Nazis. The swastika for them is a sexual talisman, evoking concupiscence when the taboo is dead from continual transgression. Eventually, all such prurience ends in boredom & impotence. This impotence spawned the Marquis de Sade. When one becomes acclimated to de Sade, there is only either madness, or Faith.

The following was written GetBig.com forum user Uberman during a conversation on Happiness

Post 1:

Happiness is linked to knowing because knowing is dominating controlling the environment, other life forms, whether they are vegetal or animal, which proves dominating underlies the feeling of happiness. Knowing, controlling, dominating, means better odds of survival, means being happy. Being happy is linked to knowing that you have better odds of survival than others.

Many people are happy believing in systems of beliefs that "work" (ie insure their survival and the survival of the loved ones who reinforce by their alliance with them their own survival) simply because..it works. It produces and cover their daily need for gratifications, chemical recipes of happiness in their brains that allow them to last one more day. Most people are happy because they follow daily routines that produce "well being" in their lives; they could’t tell why or how they got there, the conditions were just ideal for them, as simple as that.

Everything is just fine in their minds, everything has a meaning, an explanation, even what is unexplainable, which is reassuring. These beliefs also make them the good guys while giving a meaning to the enemies, the bad ones. It justifies everything geographically, temporally and emotionally. Look at how nihilist end -Vincent van Gogh, Nietzsche, Darwin etc, they all experiment with everything in life, atheism, nihilism, homosexuality, bisexuality etc; they all end crazy because the clear understanding of what is really "going on" actually drives anyone looking for a positive, pure, meaning of life to madness. Religions actually keep people away from madness and the will to destroy the absurd world, because if you re not part of the world, if you don’t participate, build, insure its survival, you re actually fighting to destroy it, life is binary, you either build or destroy, if you re not building, you re destroying. And good luck finding out for sure if someone is actually trying to create, help, or destroy.

Anyone interested in understanding nihilism / atheism and generally how we give a meaning to our lives should read Eugene Rose's work.

Post 2:

I'm still not finished reading the Bible so obviously I'd have a hard time saying i have "faith", and nowhere do i find humans or phenomenon that would allow me to find and hold it once and for all. Actually it's a work in progress. Sometimes I feel like I start to understand what faith is, just to find I lost it the second after. It is indeed, quite an effort that is required, just like when you want to build muscles -naturally-. I'm currently exploring the opposite side of faith, the dark side of the coin. Most self proclaimed atheists (atheism being "in" nowadays it's pretty smart to tell everyone you’re "in") claim religion and Christian-ism are a bunch of bulshits created to control them , failing to realize it is the anchor for a stable and productive life that keeps regenerating itself while atheism lead most people to stop breeding after several generations of believing in it. The funny is that they're also scared by sheer, unadulterated nihilism, which means they still hold Christian values deep inside their minds. They pretend to be atheist yet "believe" in the seven days of the week, have Christian names and so on. Be honest and push your reasoning to its most perfect nature; nihilist, then. Oh wait, nihilism causes one to want to end his life after a while. It means no more hamburgers, no more sex -or porn for most- no more TV, no more video games...no more hope for joy and happiness.

Post 3:

You don’t get it. smart, intelligent people, are unhappy because they realize how vain and bestial life is at its core. Only dumb people can "love" and "feel", aren’t drowning in their cynicism, this is why they procreate while "intelligent" people don’t, as simple as that. Again, intelligence has nothing to do with happiness; dumb people are often a lot more happier than smart people.

All our behaviors and thoughts processes are animalistic in the first place, we want kids for the same reasons other animal species "want offsprings". Fact is we don’t "want" shit, all of this is pre programmed behaviors, it's genetical. Those who "choose" not to have kids simply despise life and other living beings, they are sociopath and they want mankind to disappear. They all probably disappear, those who will stay will evolve to adapt to whatever happen on earth. As simple as that.

Oh BTW, mankind is divided into two main categories; poor dumb people who want to be rich, and smart rich people who want to stay rich and manipulate, dominate the poor and keep them below themselves.

Post 4:

Again, nobody is "happy", everyone is only pretending to be happy. Everyone knows there are too many people, not enough jobs. Everyone says he hates his job, yet does his best daily to prevent any newbie from being recruited, anyone from taking his place, even if it's a shity place. Everyone criticizes the boss in front of his colleagues, and criticizes his colleagues in front of his boss. And the boss knows it well.

Life is war. Everything is an instrument to wage war, words, feelings, happiness happen when you successfully dominate , kill, when you see others fail. Anger, frustration, sadness happen when you fail to dominate, are dominated. Hope is when you envision yourself or you offsprings dominating others.

There is no way mankind can last forever, our so called intelligence, consciousness -of being animals- are only other weapons to wage war against others.

Post 5:

"maturing/aging" = realizing you're an animal struggling for its survival against all the human competition. If you have money , if you re surrounded by "loved ones" -people who want you to succeed, dominate, where they weren't able to dominate so basically who live vicariously thru you- who give you advice on how to fuck people in the ass instead of being fucked in the ass by them, it's easier to cope... Others simply become violent, angry, jealous, or kill themselves realizing there is no justice or fairness in life, it's simply about adapting better than others and winning when they lose.Having kids they can get money for your retirement, it's easier to defend yourself, survive in the specie if you create your own loyal group.

The funny is that ultimately our whole specie will get extinct anyway. So most people simply come to the conclusion, while i'm here, why not simply dominate blindly without caring about all these bullshit like religion, philosophy etc, -how useful are they for a poor man? it won't help him much, all of this is just a hobble for rich people who don’t have to survive daily killing others for a job and food- life is pain for everyone so lets be happy making others having a painful day. Now multiply this belief/behavior by 7, 8 9 billions of individuals.

Beauty, strength, money, all fade away, none of these strategies of survival last forever. It s what you do with what you have at the moment you have it that matters, it's how long you maintain your strengths, it's how you reverse your weaknesses, that matters. There are people who are good looking, rich, powerful, yet are unhappy. I think our society makes it a religion to "find happiness", not understanding how it works, in fact most people get sick of looking for something that simply doesn’t exist; constant happiness. People were a lot happier on a more consistent basis in the past it is a fact. People in the past were not looking for happiness, but to please God. And they were happier.

Constant happiness? This is not what we have been designed for; happiness is just an emotion among many others. Life is a roller-coaster of feelings. There are people who have been, felt, miserable all their lives but raised kids who dominate, are happier than others by a wide margin. The me generation has no clue about history, nor can envision the future; they’ll never reach the maturity to raise kids properly enough for them to survive.

Fact is happiness is more easily found for everyone following basic principles more than buying into the last trend that in order to steal money from your pocket will "reveal" you a shortcut to reach it.

There is a bigger picture, experience, at work, and you have to see beyond individuals.

Just consider the fact that once economies collapse, not matter how good looking or rich you are, if you are at the wrong place at the wrong moment, you're good looking body and its pockets full of money dont mean shit.

The Bible says only the humble, down to earth, who finds his happiness in the simplest things will be saved, will live long...will be part of tomorrow. Only he will have hopes. We are blades of grass, and some of them are greener than others. We are just toys in the hands of something bigger than us. Our "feelings" are not even ours per se, they're just strategies of survival genetically embedded in ourselves and we didn’t choose just like we didn't choose most of our physical attributes. Our only choice is to decide what to do with them.

Life is a challenge, an experience, full of traps and one needs a strong spiritual, mental discipline to go thru it without "failing". Many good looking, strong, rich people have died since the birth of mankind. Many of their genes have been saved and cross mixed generation after generation. Many dumb, ugly people have survived the same way; they were "inferior", still they still exist. The real question is, what is the point of all of this ? Are we just a bunch of randomly mixed, generated, strategies of survival, is the only purpose of our existences to struggle for survival against others individuals , against the weather, other animal species, who are as vain and lost as ourselves and who just want to dominate without having to be someone else slave?

I don’t believe that we re designed to be constantly happy or unhappy. Life as a human being is about more than that; it's about surviving whatever the way you survive. Now, a lot of people think that all strategies of survival are equivalent, that being a whore, a murderer, a robber, is justified and just as good as studying, working, etc if it allows you to survive, others aiming at the betterment of mankind until a perfect being is obtained believe that you have to constantly improve your thoughts and/or body it gives a meaning to their existences and to the process of reproduction in humans. When they choose not to fall for a sin, they see the difficulty of that choice as a step in the good direction.

It is also funny how some ugly people give birth to good looking kids and how good looking parents give birth to ugly kids. There are so many things we don’t understand.

Ultimately I think preppers have better odds of survival than yuppies from the cities.

On a side note I think that male beauty isn’t as fun as it seems to be. I'm quite handsome myself and the more I age the more I attract young girls teens and women of all ages, pretty surprising considering i was a very insecure pimple face when a teen. As a result, I have more and more occasions to seduce and be seduced by women of all ages who want the best partner to breed with. It actually makes my life harder, more painful, because most of these women when they figure I am married have a daughters, suddenly realizing they cant "have" me start to hate on me, because I won't be their lover. How many of them also hate on me because I am the one they would have loved to start a family with but "unfortunately" they ended with the skinny fat/ fat insecure asshole. So at first glance they all fall in love then quickly turn into w(b)itches as soon as you don’t answer to their attempts to flirt with you.

Because they’re little girls who aren’t used to not get what they want.

Anyway in most cases it only results in more troubles for me than anything. So, beauty definitely has its pros and...cons.

I am afraid it's all a lot more complicated than that; if only good looking, powerful, rich people were allowed to reign, be happy, most ugly , poor people would just kill themselves right? But life is a gigantic (infinite?) experience where anything can happen, and the result of this struggle for survival is "feelings", emotions that make us feel alive. It is fascinating how we create, fabricate, give, a meaning to things with our brains, when simply put, most of what exists, is "happening", is only struggle for survival by various life forms of all kinds.

There will be major events that will see the world population decrease massively, just like it happened countless times in the past.

The real question is... who is saved, and who isn’t, who adapts, who doesn’t. Where does all of this go. What do we want for our kids and grandkids.

Post 7:

Any over exaggerated, extreme activity , hobble, behavior, at some point destroys you more than it makes you healthier or fitter. Especially when it requires you to use drugs. I said it countless times, it's all fun and games until you reach your 40s/50s and you re lonely with a bad back, bad knees, bad elbows, ruined internal organs and so on. Life is a marathon not a sprint race.

I can understand fit, mostly ectomorph/mesomorph genetically gifted people of rich upbringing who spent their life working out -because they had the free time to do so- might come to the conclusion that they are some kind of ubermen whose shit doesn’t stink, still they often come across as complete douche-bags with nothing else in life but their fucking "competitions" "challenges" "records". I wouldn't be surprised if most of them came from dysfunctional families and were raised by either single mothers or fathers who lived vicariously thru them and got them into sports at an early age. Most of them are cynical, hypocritical and somewhat unable to feel anything for someone else but themselves. They come off as cold , scornful and hateful. It must be hard to constantly pretend being perfect, hard to never be satisfied with anything. Clearly childhood related issues.

Post 8:

Why would I? I have time to enjoy family and focus on my daughter, Wife also works part time, we save enough and have something to give our daughter... Sorry I don’t see the point -exhausted stressed colleagues who work 40 hours a week and can only say "good evening" to their dysfunctional families, then go watch TV and rush to bed, i know how it works- especially considering there are too many people, not enough jobs, that the phenomenon is increasing and will end with wars as it always does; is there a need to mention the millions of over-diplomed people i work with whose pieces of paper are worth trash ? Not only there are too many under qualified people, but at the same time there are more and more over qualified people, and we are actually DESTROYING jobs with technological "progress". Sorry i don’t believe in your paradigm anymore. Also, to be honest, I hate the city and the fools who live there more and more. The less time i spend there the better i feel. I see all of this thru the eyes of the Bible, sooner or later it s going to explode and everything will somewhat be reset. Once it happens, it's not diplomas you're going to need. Oh, and working on improving your house and farming are actually the only kind of skills that are truly useful.

Societies based at 80% on services jobs are going nowhere when economies collapse. 80% of people will lose their jobs. You have to see long term. Also having kids just modifies everything in the way you see time, space and life in general.

Post 9:

The 1 % need the 99% to be the 1%. The point of life is not to be "enlightened", but to survive, adapt, dominate. The "enlightened" dalai lama wouldn't be shit if he didn’t have tons of people to serve him.

Post 10:

People marry to survive. To play the game, because they’ve been conditioned to do so. All behaviors are animal behaviors. Some survive better alone. Fact is, there is no point , purpose, to all of this. All life forms only follow blind predeterminate paths, behaviors, they don’t choose and simply reproduce subconsciously. All life forms have for only point in life to survive until they can reproduce, and every single human behavior just like any animal or vegetal behavior is a strategy of survival. There s no good or evil, there is what survives, and what doesn’t. Nobody cares about what doesn’t survives. Life is a free for all and you only feel good when you win. Most people goal in life is to win as much as possible instead of losing, because losing makes you feel bad. Most people lose, fail, constantly as there are more and more people on earth, and only 1% of them are winners. It means 99.9% of mankind is made of losers who hope to become winners. Their only goal in life is to win. At all cost. Some people haven’t been conditioned to marry in order to survive, some people have been conditioned to survive alone. Some people hate mankind, life, but stay alive just to destroy it and to benefit from all the good feelings it can provide them. Their motto is i didn’t choose to be here so at least let's enjoy it at all costs. None of this, makes sense; sense is just something we create but ultimately everything in life is all about killing or getting killed.

BTW the point of marrying someone and making alliance with others, families etc is to dominate in society. We're always dominating, or being dominated by someone else; most people when they leave an influence, are only doing it to submit themselves to another influence.

The more people there are on earth, the less people can stand each others. It s easier to appreciate others when they are few, when you need them because they are rare. When you live in cities full of people, you know you can replace anyone with anyone else, basically you realize nobody is unique, important, as you slowly realize we're just all copies, clones, of each others, all trying to make up bullshit unique personalities, characters, all influenced by the very same models, books, movies, characters. The more people there are, the more people start to hate on each others, it is probably a subconscious , purely animalistic process which randomly leads the human race to purify itself from within with wars. In these wars it's not the good guys who win, it's the biggest assholes, the strongest ones, the smartest, fastest ones. Then they write history and make themselves the good guys. The more people you see everyday, the less you care about them this is the irony of living in cities, everyone wants its share of happiness , domination, all pretending to enjoy being with each others, when in fact deep inside themselves they want to jump at each others throats and are just calculating their next plays to fuck each others.

Life is a struggle, life is about survival, and everything that exists is strategy of survival. Happiness only and solely happen when you're winning. But even if you win, in the end, you lose. Your only solace is either to think at least my kids, grandkids, will dominate more than i did, or, for a growing number of people, especially nihilistic atheists, they think ; they , we, life, this ironical, cruel joke, will end one day anyway, so lets abuse everything as consequences don’t matter anyways.

All life-forms, animal, vegetal, species, die, disappear, are unable to adapt anymore at some point. Between the birth of life and its doom, it's all about constant war, constant struggle, constant pain for 99% of life-forms, especially humans who are conscious while vegetal and other animal species aren’t. They're born, they die, they simply don’t care. Again, humans are animals who are conscious of being animals. That makes them somewhat different from all other life forms on earth. Still their lives, existences, purposes, are conditioned by mostly all the same principles, rules than other life-forms. Our only difference is our ability to give a meaning, sense, to what we see, understand, but this ability is still in intrinsically in itself, just another strategy of survival among countless others.